File contents

For over two months I have been waiting for a decision to be made by the School Committee/Superintendent to reinstate the kindergarten PSP’s (instructional aides).  
The school committee vowed, at town meeting and at their own meeting subsequently, that for a cost of a mere $55,000 for five positions, and with a significant town-wide/grade-wide impact to be felt from the loss of these professionals in our kindergarten classrooms, that this was their first priority--to reinstate these positions when funds became available.  Yet at the May 22 School Committee meeting the School Committee, having found over $100,000 of “new” money, chose to spend that money on other things. One can argue that adding two new first grade sections was reasonable, as enrollment apparently exceeded expectations.  But the School Committee never mentioned spending new monies to hire a new nurse at Harrington. I am a health professional and generally laud efforts to improve student health.  But I have a problem with the fact that the stated priorities of the School Committee were not adhered to.  Those priorities were loudly proclaimed at town meeting, but the decision not to implement these priorities occurred late at night at a poorly publicized, poorly attended meeting.  Put simply, the School Committee failed to do what it promised. 
Recently I have heard that the PSP flap is connected with the PSP contract.  Apparently the PSP contract, as negotiated and signed, omitted a clause which gave the union’s consent to an increase in their health insurance copay, (once all the other unions agreed to this increase). MA state law mandates that ALL town unions, (in this case 19), must agree before a change in municipal employee benefits will take place.  If the PSP union and all unions in town do not agree to the copay change, then townwide savings will not be achieved.  The omission of this clause in the PSP contract was likely a clerical error.  But my understanding is that with each month that passes that the new copay is not achieved, there is a $25,000 cost to the town, or a failure to achieve a $25,000 savings. Clerical errors should not be the driving force behind educational policies in Chelmsford. 
There is plenty of blame to go around.  Who negotiated the contract and failed to include the copay clause?  Once the mistake was noted, why did not the union negotiator do the right thing for the PSP’s (whose jobs they are supposed to protect) and for our children and for the town—and make the appropriate contract amendment?  If these matters stand to save the town hundreds of thousands of dollars, shouldn’t they have been reviewed by legal professionals? I am an involved parent, taxpayer and professional.  I am by inclination supportive of the schools and of the school committee, but I have been disturbed during this process by the lack of transparency and by the lack of responsiveness by the school administration/leadership. I understand that some of these issues are not able to be discussed due to ongoing contract negotiations. I have been in communication with the office of the Superintendent, both by email and by phone requesting a meeting to clarify some of these issues.  They have not responded to my inquiries.  With open communication, spurious claims/fears can be assuaged and collaborative problem solving can be achieved.  I look forward to a new era of open communication with the new School Administration.

Sincerely,

Deirdre Connolly MD